• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010

In short, if capitalism needs a regulator, it has to be the people. If it's government, it ceases to be capitalism.

Government regulation should favor public interest. If it's not capitalism when the government puts forward regulations in favor of public interest then who needs capitalism?
 
An educated, informed populace is the last thing capitalism wants. What capitalism needs to succeed are lots of obedient workers who don't demand much money.

You're equating capitalism with large scale production. There's a consumption dynamic in capitalist economies that leftists refuse to admit exists.

If it's not capitalism when the government puts forward regulations in favor of public interest then who needs capitalism?

People who want to be able to protect any of their wealth.
 
You're equating capitalism with large scale production. There's a consumption dynamic in capitalist economies that leftists refuse to admit exists.

Sure. So you have 10 or 15 percent of the population that does the consuming, and everyone else does the producing. Or at least, that seems to be the system that conservatives are working towards.
 
Sure. So you have 10 or 15 percent of the population that does the consuming, and everyone else does the producing. Or at least, that seems to be the system that conservatives are working towards.

Huh? Yeah I think you have that backwards. Very few produce. Nearly everyone consumes. Our government pays people to keep consuming who don't really produce.
 
People who want to be able to protect any of their wealth.

If your wealth is generated at the expense of my well being then screw your wealth, my well being is more important to me than the size of your bank account. Private enterprise needs to be kept in check by public interest, otherwise we're living in a chaotic and unconscious society.
 
Don't let people protect their wealth or decide anything for themselves.

The idea of "wealth protection" is interesting. Don't get me wrong- I use all of the tax shelters, deductions, etc. available to me like any rational market player...

But I think Daniel Quinn got it right in "Beyond Civilization" when he identified the moment it all started going wrong for humanity. Once food is kept under lock and key, and the hungry are not allowed to eat for the simple fact that they are hungry... that is the earliest flicker of what has become global capitalism, and the wellspring of class division.
 
Data released by the Census Bureau today showed the proportion of people living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent last year from 14.3 percent in 2009, and median household income declined 2.3 percent. The number of Americans living in poverty was the highest in the 52 years since the Census Bureau began gathering that statistic. Those figures may have worsened in recent months as the economy weakened.


We all know the rich have gotten far richer in the last decade....So come one Corporate cheerleaders tell us why the rich and the corporations need another big tax cut...we can see how much bush' tax cuts have benefitted everyone just by this article.


U.S. Poverty Climbed to 17-Year High in 2010 - Bloomberg

More of that hope and change bs that the obumblites lap up
 
If your wealth is generated at the expense of my well being then screw your wealth, my well being is more important to me than the size of your bank account. Private enterprise needs to be kept in check by public interest, otherwise we're living in a chaotic and unconscious society.
an interesting justification of parasitic socialism
 
I didn't say that.

I said the increase in poverty is related to the recession/depression. I also said that the programs we utilized to prevent increases in poverty did not work.

Don't put words in my mouth simply because you don't like my argument. That's disingenuous and counter productive.


I thought trickle down economics was supposed to increase jobs and revenue? We clearly see they did not and the GOP is only proposing more of the same.
 
I thought trickle down economics was supposed to increase jobs and revenue? We clearly see they did not and the GOP is only proposing more of the same.

Jacking up taxes on the rich has only made dem politicians wealthier and jacked up the deficit
 
i thought trickle down economics was supposed to increase jobs and revenue? We clearly see they did not and the gop is only proposing more of the same.

QE1 QE2 Will we get QE3?
 
Last edited:
Government is how "the people" regulate capitalism. If government doesn't do it's job, capitalism crashes.

The elimination of the Glass-Stegall act in 2000 and the lax regulation in the decade that followed that allowed banks to once again bet on stocks and bad loans without putting up the money to back them is one of the biggest reasons I see for our current problems.

I've read that before the stock market crash there used to be actual betting parlors where people could do the same thing we allowed the banks to do in the decade following 2000.
 
Jacking up taxes on the rich has only made dem politicians wealthier and jacked up the deficit

The rich are paying a lower tax rate now then they've paid in 65 years. You think the country is running better now than it was between WWII and the late 60s?
 
If your wealth is generated at the expense of my well being then screw your wealth, my well being is more important to me than the size of your bank account. Private enterprise needs to be kept in check by public interest, otherwise we're living in a chaotic and unconscious society.

For one thing, your value judgment about the importance of my bank account relative to your well-being (whatever that means to you) is nothing more than your value judgment. The two do not have anything to do with one another, and your attitude does not give you access to my money.

For another thing, why can't the public look out for its own interest by way of their conscious, rational decisions? Why does someone else have to make their decisions and do the advocating the way parents do for a child? Private enterprise and public interest go hand-in-hand, yet you paint them as competing forces. I guess that's because leftism assumes people cannot make their own best choices. Am I right?
 
For one thing, your value judgment about the importance of my bank account relative to your well-being (whatever that means to you) is nothing more than your value judgment. The two do not have anything to do with one another, and your attitude does not give you access to my money.

For another thing, why can't the public look out for its own interest by way of their conscious, rational decisions? Why does someone else have to make their decisions and do the advocating the way parents do for a child? Private enterprise and public interest go hand-in-hand, yet you paint them as competing forces. I guess that's because leftism assumes people cannot make their own best choices. Am I right?

That's a bit unworkable in practice, don't you think? Say there's a need for a new highway interchange. What would you do? Have each individual build his or her own offramp, each according to his or her own preference?
 
Jacking up taxes on the rich has only made dem politicians wealthier and jacked up the deficit

Absolutely true...

The top drives the economy - always has, always will. Who forms companies, invests capital? Does the hiring/firing? Who pays the taxes that run the government, fund the military? Cut taxes to the middle class - ok, I have no problemo with that. It will usually result in modest gains in consumer spending and investment. But if you want to really get the economy going people, cut taxes on the top tier. Capital investments go up, job creation goes into overgear, wages rise, production soars. All else is nickle and dimes.
 
Absolutely true...

The top drives the economy - always has, always will. Who forms companies, invests capital? Does the hiring/firing? Who pays the taxes that run the government, fund the military? Cut taxes to the middle class - ok, I have no problemo with that. It will usually result in modest gains in consumer spending and investment. But if you want to really get the economy going people, cut taxes on the top tier. Capital investments go up, job creation goes into overgear, wages rise, production soars. All else is nickle and dimes.

So by your logic things should be MUCH better now, when the rich are paying an effective tax rate of about 17% than they were 20 years ago, when the top effective tax rate was around 26%? I'm not seeing it.
 
Absolutely true...

The top drives the economy - always has, always will. Who forms companies, invests capital? Does the hiring/firing? Who pays the taxes that run the government, fund the military? Cut taxes to the middle class - ok, I have no problemo with that. It will usually result in modest gains in consumer spending and investment. But if you want to really get the economy going people, cut taxes on the top tier. Capital investments go up, job creation goes into overgear, wages rise, production soars. All else is nickle and dimes.

How do you think we got to where we are NOW, dude?
 
It's simple math. More and more assets continue to roll uphill to the wealthy (that's how wealth works in this country) and more and more people are born every day. That's an increasing population having to deal with a decreasing amount of spreadable capital. I don't see the confusion.
 
I didn't say that.

I said the increase in poverty is related to the recession/depression. I also said that the programs we utilized to prevent increases in poverty did not work.

Don't put words in my mouth simply because you don't like my argument. That's disingenuous and counter productive.

Actually, the rate at which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer jumped significantly 30 some years ago. And the trend has been steadily downward or stagnant for the lower 80% since then. While the top quintiles wealth has increased almost exactly commensurately.

The recent economic crisis is a spike in a downward, long term trend.
 
That's a bit unworkable in practice, don't you think? Say there's a need for a new highway interchange. What would you do? Have each individual build his or her own offramp, each according to his or her own preference?

I was not arguing absolutes, so finding one example of an agreeable government function doesn't show why any conceivable function is also okay.

Bardo's example positioned his "well-being" against my bank account, which is quite the reckless disregard for private property. If a person cannot accumulate wealth to use to pursue a goal without someone (person or government) making a claim on it, citing their own personal welfare or "need," then what can a person ever really accomplish?
 
I was not arguing absolutes, so finding one example of an agreeable government function doesn't show why any conceivable function is also okay.

I could list thousands of such examples.

Bardo's example positioned his "well-being" against my bank account, which is quite the reckless disregard for private property. If a person cannot accumulate wealth to use to pursue a goal without someone (person or government) making a claim on it, citing their own personal welfare or "need," then what can a person ever really accomplish?

I can't speak for him, but I don't think anyone is proposing that anyone should be prevented from accumulating wealth. OTOH, I think that it's in everone's interest to prevent gross imbalance in wealth accumulation such as we're seeing now, where 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the people in the the country.
 
I could list thousands of such examples.

I'm sure you could find more things you think are good examples than I could.

OTOH, I think that it's in everone's interest to prevent gross imbalance in wealth accumulation such as we're seeing now, where 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 50% of the people in the the country.

If it's in everyone's interest, why don't they adjust their consumptive behaviors accordingly, so as not to continuously reward the largest, richest and most powerful producers of goods and services in the nation and world? Because they're too lazy to do that. In the short-term (which is where most people seek gratification) it's actually in each individual's best interest to maximize his pleasure for the lowest immediate cost. Very few people spend significantly more money supporting local or regional goods and services whenever there's a lower cost alternative.
 
If it's in everyone's interest, why don't they adjust their consumptive behaviors accordingly, so as not to continuously reward the largest, richest and most powerful producers of goods and services in the nation and world? Because they're too lazy to do that. In the short-term (which is where most people seek gratification) it's actually in each individual's best interest to maximize his pleasure for the lowest immediate cost. Very few people spend significantly more money supporting local or regional goods and services whenever there's a lower cost alternative.

You got it. It's the Tragedy of the Commons problem. If everyone cooperated, everyone would be better off. But by and large each individual won't cooperate unless there's some assurance that others will do the same. That's what government is for: to provide that mechanism and assurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom